A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

As a random act of kindness, I quit my job at the time, and spent about 300 hours learning law and raising up this interim injunction to help in the case of a stranger, a man I had never met but who had been accused of growing 500 plants in Cambridge. I offered him accommodations at my house in Auckland (after his trip from Whangarei) and a lift to Hamilton to face the charges and travelled their with him that day.

This is a class action interim injunction against various agencies of crown this year. I did not actually serve the notice to the crown – well actually I did try but it was not accepted for filing by the registrar – but don’t worry, in 2017 I fully intend to serve this to the crown at the High Court in Auckland.

Without further ado… the action:  (The following is a full text paste from the official documents linked above)

In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry

IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

Crown versus Xxxxl                         CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 0X# November 2016)

Crown versus Xxxxxxxn       CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29/10/2015, high court appeal 15/12/2015)

Crown versus Citizens         class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated

BETWEEN                         Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants

AND                                 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

AND                                 Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956

AND                                 David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007

AND                                 Una Jagose Solicitor General and/or Chris Finlayson Attorney General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.

Interlocutory Application without notice by the Applicant for interim injunction against the Respondents

To the Registrar In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton

And To the Respondants

This document notifies you that that the self represented applicants, Xxxxl, Xxxxxxxn, and the Citizens of New Zealand, hereby apply for the following interim and permanent injunctions, restraining the police and enforcing duty on the EACD:

1. Removal of the plant Cannabis Sativa and extracts from the schedules of the misuse of drugs act, mainly because a plant genus can’t be a pharmaceutical drug.
2. Addition of the drugs THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and potentially about 80 other cannabinoids and volatile terpenes, plus the very approximate $7 to $80 million dollars (at ~$1 million ballpark figure) to test each at the ESR.
3. Good faith waiver of our class action $4 billion damages claim in return for swift action by the MOJ including the immediate and comprehensive cessation of all arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations, probations, and digitisations involving the criminal histories of those accused of such victimless crimes of thought, who only wish to experience freedom in the privacy of their own home hurting nobody.

You must file in this registry of the court a statement of defence to the plaintiff’s claim (a copy of which is served [1] with this notice). You must do this within 25 working days after the date on which you have been served with this notice. If you do not, the plaintiff may at once proceed to judgment on the plaintiff’s claim, and judgment may be given in your absence.

If a trial of the proceeding is necessary, it will be held in this court at Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton at a time to be fixed by the court.

The grounds on which the each order is sought are as follows:

1. The application for an interim injunction is made without notice because requiring the applicant to proceed on notice would cause undue delay or prejudice to the applicant, Rxxxx, who has been through a number of legal aide representatives whom have all resigned due to lack of faith in the concept of jury nullification, and a selfish unwillingness to risk reputation by being seen to take on cases unlikely to result in justice for the accused.
2. The respondents have been advised of the importance of their statutory duties by ourselves on multiple occasions via attempted prosecutions by us such as on 23 June 2015, 21 February 2016, 16 August 2016, and today.
3. The Crownlaw guidelines on the decision to prosecute not only the likelihood of successful prosecution, but on reasonable notions of public interest, the obsolescence of laws, and the interests of efficiency. My injunction shines a multi-dimensional light on the hyper-unjust prohibition of a sacramental flowering plant called Sativa who’s name in Greek means useful [2].
4. There’s a saying: that laws can be passed or crushed by the ballot box, the jury box, or the ammo box.

I promise to the best of my knowledge this is made in accordance on Rules 3.52.5 3.52.28 of the District Court Rules 2009.

Signature:   _________________________________________

Rxxxx Xxxxl, Applicant in person

Date:                 /           /

Signature:   _________________________________________

Xxm Xxxxxxxn, Applicant in virtual, and authorised counsel to the Applicant like Rxxxx Xxxxl.

Date:                 29/12/16

If you file a statement of defence in the court, you must also provide the applicants with initial disclosure o           f documents in accordance with rule 8.4.

If you file a statement of defence in the court, you will be notified of the date and time of the first case management conference.

The purpose of the conference is to assist the parties in the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the proceeding, to make directions as to the conduct of the proceeding, and, where practicable, to make interlocutory orders. The parties will also be assisted to identify, define, and refine the issues in dispute.

You must prepare for and attend the first case management conference. You will be expected to have discussed with the applicant the matters set out in Schedule 5 of the High Court Rules. You or your solicitor must file a memorandum relating to the procedural matters set out in rule 7.3 of the High Court Rules.

Signature:   _________________________________________

Name:

Date:                 /           /

(Registrar/Deputy Registrar*)

*Select one.

Note: Please carefully read the memorandum attached to this notice.

In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry

IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

Crown versus Xxxxl                         CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 29 Sept 2016)

Crown versus Xxxxxxxn       CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29 October 2015, high court appeal 15 December 2015)

Crown versus Citizens         class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated

BETWEEN                         Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants

AND                                 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

AND                                 Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956

AND                                 David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007

AND                                 Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC 5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.

Memorandum of counsel to the Applicant 

Advice: Although you do not have to employ a solicitor for the purpose of this proceeding, it is recommended that you consult a solicitor about this matter immediately. However, a company or other corporation that wants to defend this proceeding or appear at any hearing must consult a solicitor immediately because—

(a) it can only carry on a proceeding in the court by a solicitor; and

(b) it cannot appear to conduct a proceeding except by counsel (unless there are exceptional circumstances).

Legal aid: If you cannot afford to meet the cost of the proceeding, you may be entitled to assistance under the Legal Services Act 2011.

The plaintiff has applied for legal aid for the purpose of this proceeding.

Statement of defence: If the last day for filing your statement of defence falls on a day on which the registry of the court is closed, you may file your statement of defence on the next day on which that registry is open.

In calculating the time for filing your statement of defence you must disregard the period that commences with 25 December and ends with 15 January.

If you file a statement of defence, you must serve a copy of it on the applicants who have given an address for service. This must be done within the same period of time you have for filing the statement of defence.

Counterclaim: If you have a counterclaim against the plaintiff, you must file a statement of that counterclaim in the registry of the court, and serve it on the applicant and on any other person against whom the same claim is made. This must be done within the same period of time you have for filing a statement of defence.

Witnesses: Summonses for the attendance of witnesses will be issued on application at the registry of the court.

Registry hours: The registry hours of the court are from 9 am to 5 pm, except on court holidays.

Addresses for service

Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl
Applicant

nager@legalise.org.nz

Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn
Applicant, and council to Xxxxl

International Drummer, Recording Artist, Web Designer, Law Reform Enthusiast
xxxxxxs@legalise.org.nz

The Cannabis Consuming People of New Zealand
Future Class Action Applicant

THE EACD
Dr Keith Bedford
Respondent

Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The Committee is administered by a Secretariat comprised of Ministry of Health officials and advisers, as required.

EACD Secretariat
c/o Regulatory Practice and Analysis
Medsafe
Ministry of Health
PO Box 2013
Wellington
eacd@moh.govt.nz
keith.bedford@esr.cri.nz

THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health
Respondent

Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6140
chai_chuah@moh.govt.nz
SSC-Media@SSC.govt.nz
psychoactives@moh.govt.nz

THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission
Respondant

Level 7, The AIG Building, 41 Shortland Street, Auckland
PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, Auckland 1141
infoline@hrc.co.nz
roberth@hrc.co.nz

Una Jagose Solicitor General and Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand
Respondant

Level 3
Justice Centre
19 Aitken Street
Wellington, 6011
New Zealand
c.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz
oia@crownlaw.govt.nz

Statement of claim

Filed by                                    Rxxxx Xxxxl, the applicant in person.
And; for many other persons:        The Citizens of New Zealand and Rxxxx Xxxxl.

The plaintiff claims:                 The Right to an injunction and Judicial Review

UNDER THE                             Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE STATUTORY DUTIES OF THE EACD AND INTERIM ORDER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING RECLASSIFICATION OF CANNABIS

IN THE MATTER                        of breach of natural justice, breach of democracy.

AND                                         of removing, in its capacity of administration of the act, and due to overwelming evidence in support of the medicinal use of Cannabis Sativa and it’s variant straings, all mention of Cannabis plant and extracts in any schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, an act which is solely administered by the Ministry of Health.

AND                                         of breach of Section 3A of The Health Act 1956 in regards to the Function of Ministry in relation to public health; by failure to carry out it’s core founding function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health in relation to Cannabis.

AND                                         of contravention of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Namely that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

AND                                         of contravention of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007; expressly that Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.

AND IN THE MATTER                of the resulting financial, physiological and psychological damages arising from punishments out of all proportion to the “crimes” commited, and resulting from the lack of access to appropriate herbal medicine

 

Causes of action:

 

• Failure to reclassify Cannabis in a timely fashion, post 2000 ammendments
• Failure to consider the advancement of science in a timely fashion
• Failure to heed advice of expert bodies in regards unpopular, obsolete law
• Observed abuse of discretionary power by Hamilton police

Affidavit of Xxm Xxxxxxxn in support of application for injunction to remove the plant Cannabis and herbal extracts from schedules of the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1975

I, Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Ponsonby, Auckland, 39 years of age (13/0X/19XX) hereby wish to make this formal application for an emergency interlocutory with a crown representative, a member of the EACD, the Auckland commissioner for Human Rights, in Auckland, before Thursday 29 September 2016, that being the day of an upcoming prosecution of a wholly innocent man of thought crime in the Hamilton district court:

Crown v Xxxxl CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 Thursday 29 September 2016;

15019008168 Cultivates (lead charges for 500 plants in Cambridge found 1 October 2015)

All charges: 15019008169 / 15019008170 / 15019008171 / 15019008172 Possess Equipment to Cultivate / 15019008767 / 15019008768 / 15019008769 / 15019008770 / 15019008772

And my own personal application for Habeas Corpus to overturn or hide my conviction and sentence on 29 October 2015, and my requeset to be able to work as a musician which were dismissed at the High Court on 15 December 2015.

Crown v Xxxxxxxn CRI-2014-0X4-029XX and CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365

And a class action lawsuit I’m preparing against the government on behalf of the 400,000 people in New Zealand whom have tried the prohibited cannabis once in their lives, seeking potential damages of $4 billion but including a waiver settlement in return for our remedy.

I hereby seek an urgent interlocutory order or a direction relating to a matter of procedure; subject to the Supreme Court Act 2003 [3].

The matter of procedure relates to at least eight areas:

1. ambiguity in the text of the law;
2. the inheritance of laws from England;
3. the interpretation of the meaning and purpose of a jury;
4. the accused ability to address the jury directly or via Mckenzie friend;
5. inaccuracies in the text of laws;
6. constitutional issues, the rights of the indigenous, the public interest etc:
7. reduction in needlerss torture and punishment
8. reduction in costs to the government

• I hereby state claim that my request to review cannabis sativa is valid and in the public interest, and should proceed to a hearing. A judicial review is referred to as supervisory jurisdiction – reflecting the role of the courts to supervise the exercise of power by those who hold it to ensure that it has been lawfully exercised. The Judicature Amendment Act 1972 [4] saught to simplify the old matters of prerogative writs [5]; The practical position is that any exercises of power are reviewable by the courts that in substance have important public consequences. At its most basic level, judicial review is available when an Act of Parliament creates a discretionary power for public officials to exercise – be they Ministers, Chief Executives of Government Ministries, or Ministry employees – and somebody adversely affected by the exercise of that power challenges the decision on the basis that the person exercising it has not acted consistently with the power given by the Act, for example, by misinterpreting the provision giving it. Seen in this way, judicial review essentially involves the courts ensuring that the law is being followed when power is exercised in a manner that affects people. There are many ty­pes of decision that can be challenged by way of judicial review, and various bodies exercising “public” powers or functions that can have their decisions reviewed by the court, but focusing on this core aspect of judicial review provides the clearest insight into the essence of it.
• I involve the Minister, for his part as it is the ministry of Health that oversees this act, and his refusal to reclassify cannabis out of the misuse of drugs act entirely due to cannabis sativa and it’s extracts being the genus of a a plant species and not a pharmaceutical drug compound; and that he failed in his statutory duty to do so as stated binding the crown in the spirit and good intention of the opening of the Health Act 1956 in it’s promise to provide positive health outcomes for kiwis.
• I involve the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to respond to my claim of breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; and of breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007; and of the simple right to live in a plant based society.
• I involve the Solicitor General of New Zealand to respondent to the claim of failure of our government in it’s responsibility and/or statutory duty to respond to the UNHRC 5^th periodic report; and failure to provide justice by allowing the courts to bar the accused from presenting their defence of jury nullifcation by addressing the jury directly to strike down the prohibition law.
• To answer questions relating to the inheritance of our laws from England post 1840, a review of guidance provided by the judiciary as to the true purpose and history of juries, and their initial purpose as the citizens defenders from abusive powers and whether the purpose of a jury in England is the same as in New Zealand.
• Recent scientific evidence has come to light that shows the plant and concentrated extracts of Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Indica, and Cannabis Ruderalis, listed in schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 do in fact have therapeutic value as medicines; and should therefore be removed from the act, prior to the addition of the individual compounds in order to provide time to study them.
• The fact that cannabis is a plant and not a drug appears to have created a deadlock at the EACD [6], indication the assistance of a judicial review could be due.

During the April 2016 meeting of the following minutes are noted, shown below in italics, where members note that only “one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in preparation” whereas cannabis is not a molecule.

[redacted] advised that currently, if a practitioner wishes to prescribe a cannabinoid or products that contain cannabinoids, they have to make an application to the Minister. Currently there are no products containing only CBD that are approved medicines both domestically and internationally. There are however, a number of non-pharmaceutical products available. It was noted that there was a difference of opinion between ESR and MoH regarding whether or not CBD should be considered a controlled drug or not. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia have recently down-scheduled CBD to a prescription only medicine with less than two percent of other cannabinoids as most CBD extracts contain small amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) due to the difficulty and associated cost to separate the two substances. The Misuse of Drugs Act (MoDA) only requires one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in a preparation for it to be captured as a controlled drug.

There is an entry in the Medicines Regulations for CBD as a prescription medicine, however, if it is also considered a controlled drug, then MoDA acts as the dominant piece of legislation.

• In relation to the plant Cannabis the contravention of the following UN Declaration [7]:“Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services. “ – The United Nations
• Right honorable Peter Dunne, member of parliament, recently gave his approval [8] for the use of Cannabis Sativa whole plant extracts to be used for therapeutic use in the treatment of a severely epileptic patient in Wellington. This fact alone is entirely sufficient evidence for the immediate removal of cannabis sativa from the act.

Dunne approves one-off use of ‘Elixinol’ on compassionate grounds; a cannabidiol (CBD) product from the United States to be administered by clinicians treating Wellington patient Alex Renton:

“I have also considered the absence of any other treatment options, the low risk of significant adverse effects, and the conclusion reached by the hospital ethics committee from an individual patient perspective.” – Peter Dunne

• Cannabis Sativa has been shown to reduce incidence of Glaucoma[9]
• Cannabis Sativa has been shown to be effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis[10].
• Cannabis Sativa has been shown to be effective in the inhibition of many cancers[11]:, such as lung, brain, bladder[12].
• The Sativex datasheet says it’s product it non-toxic to the liver[13].
• Studies of dogs and monkeys found 15,000 joints in 15 minutes was a fatal dose for those unfortunate animals, but the study is likely to have been incorrect science. The numbers yielded by the bunk study by my calculations an extrapolated LD50 (lethal dose in 50% of people) of 92 grams of pure THC for a person of 72 kgs, taken inside 15 minutes. Judge Young of the US DOJ said in Docket No.86-22 on September 6, 1988 comments about the LD50 of cannabis[14].
• The endocannabinoid system is the most widely spread G type receptors in the modern brain, however it does not affect the brainstem like alcohol does, and therefore can not be the cause of a fatal overdose. THC must therefore be non-toxic.
• The bodies own Endocannabinoid system is named after cannabis and it is a diverse group of neuromodulatory lipids – such as Anandamide – and their receptors in the brain that are involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, and memory; it mediates the psychoactive effects of cannabis and, broadly speaking, includes: The endogenous arachidonate-based lipids, anandamide (N-arachidonoylethanolamide, AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG); these are known as “endocannabinoids” and are physiological ligands (electron pair donors) for the cannabinoid receptors[15]; The enzymes that synthesize and degrade the endocannabinoids, such as fatty acid amide hydrolase or monoacylglycerol lipase; The cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, are two G protein-coupled receptors that are located in the central and peripheral nervous systems; The endocannabinoid system has been studied using genetic and pharmacological methods. These studies have revealed that cannabinoids act as neuromodulators for a variety of physiological processes, including motor learning, synaptic plasticity, appetite, and pain sensation.
• For the purposes of conducting additional studies in preparation for application for legal sale via the Psychoactive Substances 2013 act[16], I respectfully request that the Court considers my application for removal of Cannabis and it’s extracts from all schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Interlocutory Questions for the EACD

• For his committee’s part and as a local member the EACD’s effective refusal to reclassify cannabis out of the misuse of drugs act entirely due to cannabis sativa and it’s extracts being the genus of a a plant species and not a pharmaceutical chemical drug compound; and that he has failed in his statutory and ethical or moral duty to do so under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; 2000 Ammendments which created the committe to oversee what would become “Legal Highs”.
• In the context of the Misuse of drugs act, what exactly is a drug?
• Is Viagra the worlds only recreational prescription drug? What others exist?
• It is not hearsay to say:A pharmaceutical drug is an element or known compound that affects the mind and/or body in a clinically recognised and scientifically repeatable manner. The compound can be purified and studied.
• Scientifically formulated drugs are virtually never plants, they are pure extracts.
• Cannabis sativa is the genus of a plant. It is not a drug. It’s inclusion in the schedules is unique. No other banned or prohibited plants exist; certain noxious weeds can not be sold at garden stores, but it is not prohibited to possess or cultivate them.
• I request an interim injunction requesting the EACD to consider removing plant genus cannabis and it’s extracts by amendment, and suggest the same or intended effect could be discovered by studying the following compounds:

THC – Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THCA – Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid, THCV – Tetrahydrocannabivarin, CBD – Cannabidiol, CBN – Cannabinol, CBG – Cannabigerol, CBC – Cannabichromene, Terpenes – diverse group of organic HydroCarbons (C5H8).

Supreme Court Judicial Review Interlocutory

• The United Nations has twice put New Zealand on notice for poor performance in regards human rights, re-iterating the initial warning from the 4^th report in the 5^th periodic report[17]
• Since our law is based on English law prior to 1840, is New Zealand subject to the same UK court precedents prior to 1840?
• Under the Crimes Act 1961, would it be considered wilful perversion of justice to distribute this[18] informational flyer about Jury Nullification to all houses in Hamilton?
• Do the citizens of New Zealand have the right to freedom of thought?
• According to the Bill of Rights we are supposed to have freedom of religion, yet this does not seem to stretch to freedom of culture. Why is that?
• Since we currently have the legal right to perform acts to alter our minds such as meditation/skydiving/spinning to dizziness/hyperventilating; and since this right to alter our minds extends to the cultural practices of alcohol, caffeine and recreational drug viagra; then shouldn’t this right also extend to cultural practices of altering our minds using other less harmful chemicals instead, even if these cultural practices seem alien so long as they harm no other person?
• In some countries you could be punished just to think of gay sex.

Yet thought crimes are indefensible.

In NZ, recently bills have been proposed to reverse the convictions of homosexual men accused of performing sodomy or anal sex – this non-crime is essentially similar to drug non-crime in that it is a non-crime of thought as well as prosecutor-led court action that is victimless, lacks a witness and is also complainant-free.[19]

• Does the state recognise or deny our right to the freedom to develop our own unique human personality, our cultural behaviors, lifestyles, religions, traits and customs, so long as it does not harm ourselves physically or mentally, nor anyone else or nor anyone or other nation states property in any measureable way that’s reasonable?
• Recently the Mexican supreme court ruled in favour of the right to develop a personality and stuck down the ban on the cannabis plant for contravening this, so I felt this was relevant to my interlocutory application at the Supreme Court.
• What justification exists or why should New Zealand citizens have a right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers and is this right enshrined in any legislation currently?
• Does the court agree that one good purpose of a jury is to protect citizens from overzealous governments and courts by forming a safety valve or sorts for aberrant or obsolete laws?
• Our nation and many others are based on the universal and historic text of the Magna Carta of 1215 AD which establishes this and we intend to mount a defence basd primarily on the idea a jury can protect citizens from bad laws[20].
• Should the criminal defence be allowed to instruct juries of their civic responsibility to deliver justice to their fellow citizens perhaps over and above the duty to law and to the crown? If not, why not? Does this conflict with the Magna Carta?
• Our defence depends on our ability to address the jury; to educate on our countries legal history and laws and to instruct the jury in this case to strike out the Misuse of Drugs Act, and to declare the fruits of the search warrant null and void and that any obstruction to our right to present our natural defence is a direct afront to our understanding of the system and counter to the entire reason for having jury trials!

The cases are:

1. a) The King v William Penn and Mead. 1670 Tower of London, United Kingdom[21];
2. b) The Crown v Murnane 2008; Waihopai, New Zealand[22].

In both cases the jury acquitted the accused of “thought crimes” despite considerable evidence, due to the fact that a thought crime is not defendable.

• The right to present a defence as requested by the barons in Magna Carta by The King of England was given under duress of his life and the capture of London castle. If the citizens right to mount a defence to the jury is threatened this must necessarily end in violent conflict surely?
• Does the jury have the option to find any defendant not guilty even if doing so may require accepting the evidence of the crime as factually committed by the accused and yet also simultaneously determine the law itself to be invalid, irrelevant, obsolete, or not in the public interest in this particular case?
• In The King v William Penn, was a matter of a victimless crime and obsolete law. Penn was able to admit the truth of the statements of fact but still plead not guilty claiming the law to be incorrect, and by addressing the jury for compassion in the shadow of tyranny.
• Is it sensible or responsible for crown prosecution to proceed with Crown v Xxxxl CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 if the defendant is indicating support from myself to mount exactly such a defence of jury nullification and a simultaneous claim of right under the Crimes Act 1961 or should parliament or the judiciary intervene to clarify its position on the matter?
• Considering the mountain of evidence against my Mckenzie friend Xxxxl, and guilty admission in statements to police, an entire jury trial seems an expensive waste of tax payers money.
• The fact that an accused person acted without “claim of right” is an element of this offence with must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It enables a defendant to advance at their trial that they genuinely believe that what they were doing was lawful, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief.
• In summing up the Waihopai Three case to jurors, Judge Stephen Harrop said if the Waihopai Three believed they were acting lawfully, even if they were mistaken in that belief, they must be acquitted.

The right of defence was that they acted urgently to save another life.

• Considering the recommenations in The Law Commission Report 2011[23] generated over 3,800 submissions, and ultimately recommended repeal of the act in Chapter 14 R1, why has he not called for the repeal of the act?

Questions for Humans Rights Commissioner

• For his part by denying my Mckenzie friend Xxm Xxxxxxxn his legitamate claim to an indigeonous Customary right of use of traditional plants, and to clarify the difference between freedom of religion and freedom of culture, and a review of his commissions lack of action in regards the UNHRC 5^th periodic report.
• ###
• My initial human rights complaint was declined by from Robert Hallowell, legal counsil for the HRC on the basis I am not an indigeonous person[24].
• I have never in my life harmed anyone or property, nor have I ever been charged nor convicted of any crime involving any person or property.
• I was the victim of police harassment and multiple unwarranted searches of my home during 2015, including an entire search of my house and locked bedroom when I was not home due to “the smell of cannabis” being smoked by one of my flatmates in our free standing villa. The police did not knock and came around the back of the house. By September I had begun to record the date/times of the visits and counted 6.
• Regarding being actively denied the ability to work by probation during my 6.2 month sentence of community detention on Cannabis supply charges; on three separate occasions I presented in written offers of work from three different employers that I could willfully accept (Appendix A), but each time and finally in escalation from my probation manager up to a managerial level written refusal from the department involving the superstition of likely future offending on the dates, based on false propositions I’d likely offend again during the specific hours of my employment, which were at night time.
• Community detention is a home based rehabiliative custodial sentence given to offenders deemed at low risk to society, and allows an offender to work during the sentence.
• As such this is a contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993 part 2 Unlawful discrimination, which relate to discrimination in employment matters: It shall be unlawful for any person concerned with procuring employment for other persons or procuring employees for any employer to treat any person seeking employment differently from other persons in the same or substantially similar circumstances by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, in my case on my religious belief, ethical belief, my race or aparent lack thereof, my abnormally high psychological function.
• I also believe the department may have taken some of my political opinions to heart in preventing my access to employment during this time. My probation officer suggested that I could take up other employment options at a lower pay rate than the offers I had on the the table. As such where an applicant or employee is qualified for work of any description – as I was – it shall be unlawful for such people to offer or afford the applicant or employee less favourable terms of employment, or conditions of work.
• Contravention of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Namely that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
• The Department of Corrections was formed in 1995 with the intention of improving public safety and assisting in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Part of my rehabilitation involves fair and equal rights of access to employment.

My Customary Rights Claim

• I claim that my Customary rights are infringed, as promised by article 24, clause 1 of the United Nations Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007; expressly that Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.
• Establishment of own Customary rights to plant based medicine and ceremonies is presented.
• My fathers tribe (collectively, the Xxxxxxxns, the Rixxxonxs, the Huxxxxouses) come from the United Kingdom and I claim Customary use of the plant Cannabis Sativa for use as a hemp fibre, such as that enjoyed by my forefathers did before me in the UK. I am a direct descendant by blood of Hxxxx Axxxxx Xxxxxxxn who arrived in 1852, and he is my great great great grandfather by father-son relationship. My evidence will show that the production of hemp (cannabis Sativa) was one of the prime motivators for the British colonisation of Australasia at the end of the 18th century. Britain’s economy and security was almost entirely dependent on the traditional hemp plant, Cannabis sativa. I wish to be allowed to pursue my forefathers reasons for coming to this fine land, and to be allowed my traditional methods of fibre production for linen, rope, sheets and sails and so forth.
• My mothers tribe (the Bxxxxxs) come from Austria in 1939 seeking refuge from persecution from Hitler, and belongs to the Jewish faith. In the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) you can find the text that reads: “Also, one will beautify [Shabbat candle lighting] when the wick is made from cotton, flax or cannabis…”. It is clear to me that using cannabis for clothing and accessories was very common to my ancestors. It was used for making tallitot and tzitzit, as well as “schach” (Sukkot roof coverings), and cannabis fits into the category of kitnyos on Passover, meaning that Ashkenazi Jews were prohibited from using it on the holiday. One thus might assume that it was also consumed, perhaps as food, during the remainder of the year.
• While none of these traditional purposes even include psychotropic usage, however, I do not see this as an issue, and psychotropic use can be argued as granted in our universal right to freedom of thought and religion.
• Some members of our community feel it a matter of life and death, and in fact, and work tirelessly day and night to resolve the situation. For example, in the sad case of one late Stephen Macintyre, a generous man who was said to have supplied terminal cancer patients with below-cost medical cannabis, was needlessly persecuted by the police after a breach of his privacy, and by the same multiple warrantless searches on his home to mine, and he decided the system was in fact too strong to fight alone, to hang himself with a rope.
• The Bill of Rights Act was cripled when passed into law as a regular statute, and therefore our judiary seem bewilderingly, and unsettlingly forced into a quite strict robotic form of the legal interpretations of the act in regards cannabis. It would appear the only body capable of full exoneration is a jury of my peers.
• Should parliament be instructed by the supreme court to act positively and decisively on the advice of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in it’s 4th and 5th periodic reports?
• These are about right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence relating to possession with intent to supply. The UNHRC says that the burden of proof must fall with the prosecution, not with to the defence to prove innocence, so can we please have a direction from the supreme court on the matter?
• Do we have no other option but to forever incarcerate recidivist cannabis growers, dealers and users who refuse to cease growing, selling, and using the plant?
• Most recidivist criminals receive extremely long preventative detention sentences for good reason.
• Along with the United Kingdom and Israel, New Zealand is alone in not having a written, codified constitution, but at any rate laws are actually an extremely weak guarantee of outcome. We outlaw murder, theft, they still happen. This is not to say those behaviors are not bad; and it is not to say we don’t want to have any rules or laws; but that there are better guarantees of outcomes should we choose to look at the evidence.
• The evidence shows that ethics, morality, and a humanity are a better guarantee of desirable outcomes for a country than strict laws to enshrine a victimless crime law initially designed to target political opponents of Richard Nixon.
• We intend to widely distribute the Jury Biasing Flyer in order to bias the jury towards nullification of this violent prohibition that has gone for long enough.
• Should the jury and judiciary consider complex variables such as compassion, ethics, morality, and humanity or rather be instructed to instead behave more reliably like a computer, emotionless, robotic, but yet 100% fair and even entities?
• I would like the double positive scenario (both fair and humane) affirmed by a supreme court judge, to ensure the possibility of a fair trial for my friend and myself in future. The negative-positive combination (not human but only fair) appears to be the de facto method in NZ, hence the interlocution in this case.
• Should the judiciary and juries be instructed to overturn cases based on humanity?

In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry

IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

Crown versus Xxxxl                         CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 29 Sept 2016)

Crown versus Xxxxxxxn       CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29 October 2015, high court appeal 15 December 2015)

Crown versus Citizens         class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated

BETWEEN                         Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants

AND                                 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

AND                                 Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956

AND                                 David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007

AND                                 Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC 5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.

Undertaking by the Applicant as to damages

To: The Registrar of the District Court

I, Rxxxx Xxxxl, the applicant in this proceeding, undertake that if, by reason of the granting of the order for injunction sought by the applicant, the respondants sustain any damages that in the opinion of the court the applicant ought to pay, the applicant requests, in accordance with wording of the law – to let the costs lie where they fall.

• The costs should lie where they fall because this document if brought as a class action would likely bring over $4 billion in damages based on $400 million/year cost to government of prohibition based on the Sue Grey OIA[25].
• Just one single year of the prohibition running in this counrty would create an easy net boost to the government coffers caused by the success of this action and is I propose likely a suitable bond against failure on my part in bringing it; in order to as is my right in the law to let the costs “lay as they fall” in the words of the law itself.

On the above basis the plaintiff seeks the following remedy:

• Judicial Review to force removal – or replacement by the correct chemical compound names of the active ingrediants – of the plant genus Cannabis Sativa and it’s herbal extracts from schedules of the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1975.
• Government funded study of the compounds in cannabis, including but not limited to the following compounds:

THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and potentially about 80 other chemicals in the class of compounds known as cannabinoids and terpynes, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.

• Confirmation by judicial review that the defence can address the jury and be allowed the fullest chance to present a defence of jury nullification, by informing them of the history of juries in England, especially with reference to the Magna Cart 1215 and case of William Penn 1670.
• We request that the court exercise it’s ability under the Judicature Act 1908 and issue an interim order declaring that the Crown ought not to institute or continue with any proceedings, civil or criminal, in connection with cannabis.
• I may absolve my claim of damages arising from the inappropraite classification of cannabis, and the failure of the EACD to remove the whole plant, equal to the resultant financial, physiological and psychological hardships I’ve endured arising from these bizarre punishments that seem out of all proportion to relative seriousness of the “crimes” alleged; and resulting from the lack of access to appropriate herbal medicine; if the court or body involve would consider my claim and offer to extinguish all past convictions, drop all current cases and prosecutions, release all current prisoners, and begin to collect taxes on it.

Signature:                                                          (sign here)

• In 1533 King Henry VIII decreed that all landholders set aside one-quarter acre for the cultivation of hemp for every sixty acres of land that they tilled, in order to provide the necessary fibre required by the nation. This was to satisfy the increased demand for rope and sailcloth for King Henry’s VIII new navy. In 1563 Queen Elizabeth I backed this up with a £5 fine. I put it that the United States led war on drugs was incorrectly and illegally applied in breach of these orders by the Royalty and due for immediate repeal.
• In Magna Carta we see

Laws are weak guarantees of outcomes.

We outlaw murder, theft, but they still happen.

This is not to say those crimes are OK, and this is not to say that all laws are bad. But sometimes there are better alternatives.

The law is no substitute for consciousness. The legality of a thing is no guarantee of the morality of it.

Sometimes a humane approach is the right approach; we should be allowed to consider when they are appropriate, and be allowed to request the jury to consider it, not prevented from depositing this historic, scientific, and cultural evidence.

And if ethics and humanity can by fact provide greater guarantee of desired outcomes and protection of individual human rights than legislation is – then it’s that moment when the actual laws and policies themselves are left forlorn and obsolete, and they become a tool of abuse of the state, and a way to discriminate and segreate communities with violnce and promotes a culture of gang warfare.

Yours sincerely, Xxxxxs and Rxxxx.

Thursday, 29 September 2016 at the District Court of Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton

PS Thank you and thanks in advance for your eagerly awaited reply! Some further information about the drugs found in the plant cannabis sativa are in my appendix. As you can see I have actually purposefully held back on the questions for my interlocution, as their is a lot more material I have not covered in Appendix B.

Xxm Xxxxxxxn – Director

The Xxxxxsachi Corporation

M: 021 xxxxx22 | Web:

Subscribe to Auckland Music Update

Bands: Xxxxxsachi.tv | tripxxxxxxx.com

Date:                 /           /

Name:             Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn

This document is filed by the plaintiff in person. The address for service of the plaintiff in this proceeding is

Suite 6734

PO Box 83000

Johnsonville

Wellington 6440

New Zealand

xxxxxs@legalise.org.nz

Appendix A – Plaintiff’s list of documents relied on

Next event date:                         Thursday 29 Sept 2016 Hamilton District Court
Crown versus Xxxxl      CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 v

Filed by Xxm Xxxxxxxn, the plaintiff in person.

And; for many other persons: The Citizens of New Zealand and Rxxxx Xxxxl.

To the Registrar of the High Court at Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton

and

To Dr Keith Bedford, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, Dr Chai Chuah, Director General Ministry of Health, Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand, David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission

Lists of the documents relied on by the plaintiff

[1]   Supreme Court Act 2003.pdf

[2]   Judicature Amendment Act 1972.pdf

[3]   eacd-meeting-minutes-27apr2016.docx

[4]   UN Declaration Righs Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.pdf

[5]   OIA 2015150639-0001 Alex Renton Peter Dunne 2407.pdf

[6]   Cannabinoids and Glaucoma BJO 08800708.pdf

[7]   Bove – Use of Marijuana for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.pdf

[8]   “Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents”

Guillermo Velasco, Cristina Sánchez & Manuel Guzmán; Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 436-444 (June 2012) | doi:10.1038/nrc3247UN Universal Human Rights 1939.pdf

[9]   Day-Cancer-Why-We’re-Still-Dying-to-Know-the-Truth-(2000).pdf

[10]          Sativex Datasheet: Potential Therapeutic Drug Interactions

[11]          LD50 cannabis Exhibit_G.pdf

[12]          “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”

Grotenhermen, Franjo (23 Jul 2012). “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de

[13]          Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.pdf

[14]          UN 5th Periodic CCPR-C-NZL-CO-5.pdf

[15]          Jury Biasing Flyer.pdf

[16]          Homosexual law reform bill petittion

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill

[17]          Magna Carta 1215 AD.pdf

[18]          William-Penn-and-Nullification.pdf

[19]          Waihopai Leason-2013-NZCA-509.pdf

[20]          NZHRC Decline Customary Rights February 2016

[21]          Customary Rights Claim of Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn

[22]          Crownlaw-prosecution-guidelines.pdf

[23]          Synod_Prison_Task_Group_Incarceration_in_NZ 2010.pdfMisuse of Drugs Act 1975.pdf

[24]          Misuse of Drugs Medicinal Cannabis Amendment Bill.pdf

[25]          The Emperor Wears No Clothes – Jack Herer 25.pdf

[26]          Sativex Application Approval Form.doc

[27]          Law Commission Review 2011.pdf

[28]          Inquiry-cannabis-legal-status-DBSCH-SCR-2531-2399.pdf Forty-seventh Parliament (Steve Chadwick, Chairperson) August 2003:

a.     Page 49-50 EACD give a high priority to its reconsideration of the classification of cannabis.

b.     Recommendation 22 Page 57 shows support for clinically tested cannabis products for medicinal purposes

[29]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Guillermo Velasco, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. 2009.

[30]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Salazar et al. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009; DOI: 10.1172/JCI37948.

[31]          THC Shrinks Tumours. Munsen A.E et al. J Nat Cancer Inst, Vol 55, No. 3, Sept 1975.

[32]          Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids 2009

 

A 2009 review of nearly 200 scientific trials assessing the therapeutic utility of cannabinoids for the treatment of nineteen clinical indications: Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, dystonia, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders, gliomas, hepatitis C, HIV, hypertension, incontinence, MRSA, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, sleep apnoea, and Tourette’s syndrome.

Appendix B – Excerpts of evidence

[1]   Supreme Court Act 2003.pdf

interlocutory application—

• (a)  means an application in a proceeding or intended proceeding for—
  • (i)  an order or a direction relating to a matter of 
procedure; or
  • (ii)  in the case of a civil proceeding, for some relief 
ancillary to the relief claimed in the pleading; and
• (b)  includes an application for a new trial; and
• (c)  includes an application to review a decision made on an interlocutory application

[2]   Judicature Amendment Act 1972.pdf

4 Application for review

On an application which may be called an application for re­ view, the High Court may, notwithstanding any right of appeal possessed by the applicant in relation to the subject matter of the application, by order grant, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed or purported exercise by any per­ son of a statutory power, any relief that the applicant would be entitled to, in any one or more of the proceedings for a writ or order of or in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari or for a declaration or injunction, against that person in any such proceedings.

[3]   eacd-meeting-minutes-27apr2016.docx

Excerpts from point 5: Cannabidiol (CBD)

[redacted] (Senior Policy Analyst, MoH) and [redacted] (Principal Advisor, Medicines control) attended the meeting at 10.21am.

Dr Stewart Jessamine chaired the discussion as Assoc. Prof. Cynthia Darlington had declared a conflict of interest due to her involvement in preclinical research into cannabinoid pharmacology. The Committee had no issues with Assoc. Prof. Cynthia Darlington being present for the discussion given her expertise in the area but she would be excluded from the decision making process due to the outcome potentially impacting the regulatory environment for research.

[redacted] gave a brief contextual overview within the Ministry of Health (MoH). [redacted] has been involved in therapeutic uses of controlled drugs for the last few years, with her main area of interest recently being around medicinal cannabis. The MoH policy unit are of the understanding that Minister Dunne is comfortable around the current legal framework regarding access and use of controlled drugs, but he is interested to see if the policies and processes are as streamlined as they can be regarding patient safety and access.

The policy unit are currently doing work around medicinal cannabis classification in line with the EACD meetings consideration. [redacted] gave a brief overview of the function of Medicines Control. Medicines Control is a regulatory unit that regulate the medicines supply chain, which includes controlled drugs. The classification of medicinal cannabis has been quite topical in the last year and whatever final recommendations are made by the Committee will affect Medicines Control as they administer licences, approvals, permissions etc.

[redacted] advised that currently, if a practitioner wishes to prescribe a cannabinoid or products that contain cannabinoids, they have to make an application to the Minister. Currently there are no products containing only CBD that are approved medicines both domestically and internationally. There are however, a number of non-pharmaceutical products available. It was noted that there was a difference of opinion between ESR and MoH regarding whether or not CBD should be considered a controlled drug or not. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia have recently down-scheduled CBD to a prescription only medicine with less than two percent of other cannabinoids as most CBD extracts contain small amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) due to the difficulty and associated cost to separate the two substances. The Misuse of Drugs Act (MoDA) only requires one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in a preparation for it to be captured as a controlled drug.

There is an entry in the Medicines Regulations for CBD as a prescription medicine, however, if it is also considered a controlled drug, then MoDA acts as the dominant piece of legislation.

The technical paper looked at the potential therapeutic effects of CBD in comparison to the abuse potential. The Committee had been asked to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to make a recommendation for de-scheduling CBD from being captured under MoDA so that it is classified as a prescription medicine only. The Committee was also asked to consider an amendment allowing CBD preparations to contatin THC and other cannabinoids found in cannabis up to a certain threshold to enable the de-scheduling of CBD to take effect. The Committee considered the options for streamlining medical access to CBD as a controlled drug.

[redacted] advised that there were some controlled drugs that had been exempted from the ministerial approval requirements process as they had been specifically named as exempt as medicines under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. Blanket or general approvals, permissible under Regulation 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, have also been issued to supply prescribe and administer certain controlled substances . There are multiple avenues that could be considered with regard to what mechanisms are available to streamline the process to access CBD based medicines, however, the main driver for the reclassification of CBD is the TGA decision because they have set a new approach to cannabinoid based medicines.

[redacted] spoke to the notes submitted by [redacted] which covered a few issues with the current legislation. [redacted] also advised that although CBD does have the same molecular formula, ESR do not consider CBD as an isomer of THC within the specific chemical designation under MoDA as CBD is significantly different in structure from THC and is not explicitly named under the legislation. ESR also do a lot of testing for hemp growers who have expressed interest in information regarding CBD content of hemp plants and hemp fibre for therapeutic use. Another point of consideration is that more clarification around what is considered the definition of medicinal cannabis is needed.

Research in this area can be difficult due to the bureaucratic layers to obtain permission. Moving CBD out of MoDA would remove those controls but would still need to address the THC component of the argument as THC is specifically named as a controlled drug under MoDA. More research is required regarding the potential associated risks, however, the risk of CBD causing psychoactive harm is very low as CBD on its own does not produce psychoactive effects. It was also noted that approved prescription medicines have to meet quite stringent requirements regarding controls around dosage, concentration and stability among other testing criteria.

Currently, under section 29 of the Medicines Act 1981, there is an exemption for medical practitioners to prescribe unapproved medicines. Non-pharmaceutical forms do not need to meet the same requirements as approved prescription medicines.

MoH considers that CBD, even in the absence of THC, is a controlled drug under the isomer provisions of MoDA and it has administered the Medicines and Misuse of Drugs Acts in accordance with this view. If CBD is de-scheduled from MoDA to be a prescription medicine only, prescriptions will still be required to be in possession of CBD. There was a discussion around what the potential implications would be for de-scheduling CBD regarding over prescribing and abuse. Though CBD can be converted to THC, abuse and conversion of CBD to THC is considered unlikely as CBD based medicines would most likely cost much more than buying cannabis off the street as well as having to go through the process of gaining a prescription to access the CBD medicine. Currently, individuals can carry on their person up to a month’s supply of controlled drugs into NZ with appropriate overseas prescriptions and proof that it was lawfully supplied overseas for the purpose of treating a medical condition..

To address the issue around THC content in CBD medicines, it was suggested that a THC content threshold be set, similar to the allowable threshold of THC in hemp. It was discussed if the limit should be two percent, in line with Australia, or 0.35 percent in line with the threshold for THC in hemp.

The Committee queried whether there was enough evidence presented to make a recommendation for an allowable THC threshold in CBD preparations. They were particularly interested in the processes that led to the 0.35 percent threshold of THC allowed in hemp in NZ and the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines in Australia. The question was also raised of what the THC content of cannabis generally is.

Outcome: The Committee deferred the decision to the next meeting as more information is needed regarding the process that lead to the 0.35 percent of THC content threshold being allowed in hemp and the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines in Australia. Research around the effects of consumption of two percent of additional cannabinoids in a CBD product also needs to be looked at by the Secretariat and brought to the Committee.

Action: Secretariat to find out the process that lead to the 0.35 percent threshold of THC content allowed in hemp and report back to the Committee.

Action: Secretariat to find out what the process was for the TGA reaching the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines.

Action: Secretariat to find out more information around concentration levels of THC in the average cannabis that is circulating in the NZ market.

Action: Secretariat to find out more information regarding effects of consumption of products containing different concentrations of THC.

Action: Secretariat to add CBD to the next agenda.

[redacted] and [redacted] left the meeting at 12.04pm

[4]   UN Declaration Righs Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.pdf

[5]   OIA 2015150639-0001 Alex Renton Peter Dunne 2407.pdf

[6]   Cannabinoids and Glaucoma BJO 08800708.pdf

[7]   Bove – Use of Marijuana for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.pdf

[8]   “Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents”

Guillermo Velasco, Cristina Sánchez & Manuel Guzmán; Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 436-444 (June 2012) | doi:10.1038/nrc3247UN Universal Human Rights 1939.pdf

[9]   Day-Cancer-Why-We’re-Still-Dying-to-Know-the-Truth-(2000).pdf

[10]          Sativex Datasheet: Potential Therapeutic Drug Interactions

[11]          LD50 cannabis Exhibit_G.pdf

[12]          “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”

Grotenhermen, Franjo (23 Jul 2012). “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de

[13]          Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.pdf

[14]          UN 5th Periodic CCPR-C-NZL-CO-5.pdf

[15]          Jury Biasing Flyer.pdf

[16]          Homosexual law reform bill petittion

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill

[17]          Magna Carta 1215 AD.pdf

[18]          William-Penn-and-Nullification.pdf

[19]          Waihopai Leason-2013-NZCA-509.pdf

[20]          NZHRC Decline Customary Rights February 2016

[21]          Customary Rights Claim of Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn

[22]          Crownlaw-prosecution-guidelines.pdf

[23]          Synod_Prison_Task_Group_Incarceration_in_NZ 2010.pdfMisuse of Drugs Act 1975.pdf

[24]          Misuse of Drugs Medicinal Cannabis Amendment Bill.pdf

[25]          The Emperor Wears No Clothes – Jack Herer 25.pdf

[26]          Sativex Application Approval Form.doc

[27]          Law Commission Review 2011.pdf

[28]          Inquiry-cannabis-legal-status-DBSCH-SCR-2531-2399.pdf Forty-seventh Parliament (Steve Chadwick, Chairperson) August 2003:

a.     Page 49-50 EACD give a high priority to its reconsideration of the classification of cannabis.

b.     Recommendation 22 Page 57 shows support for clinically tested cannabis products for medicinal purposes

[29]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Guillermo Velasco, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. 2009.

[30]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Salazar et al. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009; DOI: 10.1172/JCI37948.

[31]          THC Shrinks Tumours. Munsen A.E et al. J Nat Cancer Inst, Vol 55, No. 3, Sept 1975.

[32]          Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids 2009

 

A 2009 review of nearly 200 scientific trials assessing the therapeutic utility of cannabinoids for the treatment of nineteen clinical indications: Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, dystonia, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders, gliomas, hepatitis C, HIV, hypertension, incontinence, MRSA, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, sleep apnoea, and Tourette’s syndrome.

Pharmacologically active chemical compounds Cannabis

THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and about 80 other chemicals are all in a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.

Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol or (THC) is a psychoactive cannabinoid responsible for many of the effects experienced by the cannabis user.
Mild to moderate pain relief, relaxation, insomnia and appetite stimulation.
THC has been demonstrated to have anti-depressant effects.
The majority of strains range from 12-21% THC with very potent and carefully prepared strains reaching even higher. Average THC potency is about 16-17% in Northern CA.
Recent research that suggests patients with a pre-disposition to schizophrenia and anxiety disorders should avoid high-THC cannabis. Cannabidiol or (CBD) occurs in many strains, at low levels, <1%.   In rare cases, CBD can be the dominant cannabinoid, as high as 15% by weight. Popular CBD-rich strains (>4% CBD) include Sour Tsunami, Harlequin and Cannatonic.

It can provide relief for chronic pain due to muscle spasticity, convulsions and
inflammation. Offering relief for patients with MS, Fibromyalgia and Epilepsy.
Some researchers feel it provides effective relief from anxiety-related disorders.
CBD has also been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth when injected into breast and brain tumors in combination with THC.
Cannabinol or (CBN) is an oxidative degradation product of THC. It may result from improper storage or curing and extensive processing, such as when making concentrates. It is usually formed when THC is exposed to UV light and oxygen over time.

CBN has some psychoactive properties, about 10% of the strength of THC.
CBN is thought by researchers to enhance the dizziness and disorientation users of cannabis may experience.
It may cause feelings of grogginess and has been shown to reduce heart rate.
Cannabichromene or (CBC) is a rare, non-psychoactive cannabinoid, usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.

Research conducted has shown CBC has antidepressant effects, 10x those of CBD.
CBC has also been shown to improve the pain-relieving effects of THC.
Studies have demonstrated that CBC has sedative effects, promoting relaxation.
Cannabigerol or (CBG) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. It is commonly found in cannabis. CBG-acid is the precursor to both THC-acid and CBD-acid in the plant usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.

Researchers have demonstrated both pain relieving and inflammation reducing effects.
CBG reduces intraocular pressure, associated with glaucoma.
CBG has been shown to have antibiotic properties and to inhibit platelet aggregation, which slows the rate of blood clotting.

CBC has been shown to increase the viability of progenitor (stem) cells in the brains of mammals, and is therefore likely to be a form of brain growth stimulant.

Terpenes are a diverse range of hydrocarbons that make up the smell constituents of cannabis. The sense of olfaction was the first sense to evolve in animals and eukaryotic multi-celled organisms, and the olfactory senses are those closest to the brain.

NZHRC Decline Customary Rights February 2016

 

Case ID: 110054

Good morning Xxxxxs Xxxxxxxn,

Thank you for your emails of 17 & 18 February 2016.

You are complaining that you have been discriminated against on the grounds of ethical belief, religious belief, and political opinion due to being unable to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis for medicinal and therapeutic use. You also contend that the inability to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis contravenes the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, affirmed in section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

In addition, you complain that that the inability to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis also contravenes Article 24(1) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which sets out Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals.

You set out your linkage to Indigenous peoples as being on your father’s side, emigrants from the UK who arrived in NZ in 1852, and on your mother’s side, her being a Jewish refugee from Austria who arrived in NZ in 1939.

You also ask how you can best establish your Customary right to plant based employment, medicine and freedom of thought and the right to develop your consciousness and personality as a European citizen of NZ.

Your suggested remedy is that the HRC and the ACLC seek an injunction removing cannabis from the Schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

There is no indicator in the information provided by you that the matters you complain about could arguably amount to unlawful discrimination in breach of the Human Rights Act.

The Commission will take no further action in relation to this matter.

Kind regards,

 

Robert Hallowell

Legal Counsel

roberth@hrc.co.nz

Appendix B of Misc. Evidence

Minister Peter Dunne approves one-off use of Cannabidiol product ‘Elixinol’

 

9 June 2015 Beehive Press Release https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/minister-approves-one-use-cannabidiol-product-%E2%80%98elixinol%E2%80%99

Associate Minister of Health Hon Peter Dunne has today approved on compassionate grounds the one-off use of Elixinol, a cannabidiol (CBD) product from the United States to be administered by clinicians treating Wellington patient Alex Renton.

…

“I have also considered the absence of any other treatment options, the low risk of significant adverse effects, and the conclusion reached by the hospital ethics committee from an individual patient perspective.”

Sativex Datasheet: Potential Therapeutic Drug Interactions

Sativex® (Datasheet) GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd. UK; 2006 http://www.gwpharma.co.uk/sativex.asp

Supreme Court Act 2003

In The Public Interest

Signature of plaintiff

                                                                                                (sign here)

Full name and address: Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn

XX Xexxxnt St
Xoxxonxy
Auckland
Date:

29/12/16

[1]
Statement of claim

[2] The plant name Cannabis is from Greek κάνναβις (kánnabis), via Latin cannabis,[1] originally a Scythian or Thracian word,[2] also loaned into Persian as kanab. English hemp (Old English hænep) may be an early loan (predating Grimm’s Law) from the same Scythian source.

[3] Supreme Court Act 2003.pdf

[4] Judicature Amendment Act 1972

[5] Judicature Amendment Act 1908

[6] Error! Reference source not found.

[7] UN Declaration Righs Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.pdf

[8] OIA 2015150639-0001 Alex Renton Peter Dunne 2407.pdf

[9] Error! Reference source not found.

[10] Error! Reference source not found.

[11] Error! Reference source not found.

[12] Error! Reference source not found.

[13] Error! Reference source not found.

[14] Error! Reference source not found.

[15] “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177free to read. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. E-mail: franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de

[16] Error! Reference source not found.

[17] Error! Reference source not found.

[18] Error! Reference source not found.

[19] Petition delivered to parliament in regards the homosexual law reform bill http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill

[20] Error! Reference source not found.

[21] Error! Reference source not found.

[22] Error! Reference source not found.

[23] Law Commission Review 2011.pdf

[24] Error! Reference source not found.

[25] OIA 20160197 Sue Grey – Economic Cost of Prohibition.pdf